Cruise Ship Australia hits stormy weather: or whose Titanic conceit?

A week after it was published in the Bulletin the storm created by David Williamson's article comparing Australia to a cruise ship (see http://www.bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/19DB1992F58E0305CA25707D000CDC14 )has, after briefly abating, increased to gale force thanks to some media luminaries who seem to have belatedly found enough wind to fill their sails (and if you think this goes over the top with nautical cliches just read what others have written).

This morning Gerard Henderson gave ABC RN Breakfast listeners his exegesis of the article; and some of the other usual media suspects have weighed in (try a Google search if you want to read them). But please note that their comments are but zephyrs to the gale force of the Australian's coverage, which began with its lead editorial on Wednesday "Titanic Conceit: if artists reject ordinary people, they are the losers". With a headline like this, who needs any further explanation? Probably not the aspirationals.

Thursday produced a (predictable) rejoinder from David Williamson, while today the Letters to the Editor began with an obsequious puff for the Oz from Dr Rachel Birati, who claimed that the editorial was "a meticulous work of art".

What next? If the Oz editorials are now, in the opinion of Dr Birati (a Monash uni academic), works of art, are they now eligible to be included in HSC English syllabi (or syllabuses)? Or will they be included in Dr Birati's course on Literature of Destruction and Redemption to be offered at Monash University in Semester 2 next year?

Through a guided study of appropriate literary texts, students will be able to explore the theme by focussing separately on destruction and redemption and then viewing them both in a unified way. Students will be directed to important critical material and will be guided through a variety of audio-visual aids.
(emphasis added)

Might Williamson's piece meet Dr Birati's criteria as an exemplum of destruction? If so, surely the Oz's editorial and Gerard H & co's responses would qualify as appropriate exempla of redemption.
What happens to the student who challenges the direction and guidance of the course coordinator, whether directly or indirectly (via assessment)? Will the Australian, Gerard Henderson or Uncle Tom Cobbley and all go into print about this threat to academic freedom? Or is this the new PC (aka neo-con toeing the line)? I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.